More non-binding BS
I'm trying to think of something meaningful to write on the news that the Senate voted to keep a timeline provision in the supplemental spending bill. As much as I would like to get fired up over what many are calling a pivotal vote on the war, one word that kept cropping up in news accounts gives me this strange feeling of deja vu: non-binding.
From what I understand, unlike last week's House vote which had firm language calling for withdrawal by the later half of 2008, the Senate provision is much more flexible (text of relevant sections of both bills here). And as we've all come to know how the Bush administration operations, give them flexible and they will contort it to the point of breaking and beyond. I know many are expecting Bush to carry out his veto threat should any withdrawal provision make it into the final bill. But I think its far more likely that just as with the resolution condemning the troop surge in Iraq, Bush and his GOP allies will latch onto this non-binding aspect as well. They need this money to keep their war going, a fact they keep harping on to get Democrats to back down. So they will make a point of how the provision is non-binding and thus meaningless in the long run. Heck, they'd probably tack on a signing statement for good measure.
I would have thought the Congress had learned their lesson when it comes to passing non-binding resolutions. Apparently not.
More from Big Tent Democrat, The Talking Dog, Michael J.W. Stickings, and Alexander Melonas.
(Filed at State of the Day)
From what I understand, unlike last week's House vote which had firm language calling for withdrawal by the later half of 2008, the Senate provision is much more flexible (text of relevant sections of both bills here). And as we've all come to know how the Bush administration operations, give them flexible and they will contort it to the point of breaking and beyond. I know many are expecting Bush to carry out his veto threat should any withdrawal provision make it into the final bill. But I think its far more likely that just as with the resolution condemning the troop surge in Iraq, Bush and his GOP allies will latch onto this non-binding aspect as well. They need this money to keep their war going, a fact they keep harping on to get Democrats to back down. So they will make a point of how the provision is non-binding and thus meaningless in the long run. Heck, they'd probably tack on a signing statement for good measure.
I would have thought the Congress had learned their lesson when it comes to passing non-binding resolutions. Apparently not.
More from Big Tent Democrat, The Talking Dog, Michael J.W. Stickings, and Alexander Melonas.
(Filed at State of the Day)
Post a Comment